Re:I work in this lab. (Score 1)

Remanufactured is a more approptiate term. I do apologize once again for my choice of language.

Right, so it doesn't cost much more to build 30 than it does to build 5. Even if you're largely hand-building the things (vs using CNC), you still need dies and templates. Besides, with any halfway modern CADD system, the CNC codes are just another output.

The original reply gave benefit to the current setup due to cost reduction through volume. My point was it isn't cost reduction through volume. I was not implying mass manufacturing is more expensive. Instead I was illustrating that due to current techniques in manufacturing, the benefits would only arrive after several hundred units were built. Not a plus for either side here. I just disagree with the cheaper by shear volume example.

No, you're talking about replacing simple, rigid plumbing fixtures with something combining flexible plumbing and electric motors, adding at least five points of failure

I do agree that complexity is not favorable in harsh environment applications. ie space. I was referring only the training necessary for service technicians. I never said that replacing the entire system with one unit was wise. In fact, I believe I point out the need for a failsafe. As for redundancy I do agree with you there. It is far safer to have a backup system.

Several grams can cost on the order of thousands of dollars to reach high earth orbit.

NASA has always been weight aware which is why so many satellites have been built twice. One is for operational checks and the light*expensive* version goes into space. Low launch weights are a necessity for monetary and equipment reasons. Personally, I think this system is far better suited to non-manned vehicles. Granted the proposal was for manned craft; however, the system doesn't seem well suited for that use. The system would need to be massive. Lighting the motor under launch conditions would be catastrophic due to the off axis loading on the single motor. I believe that high orbit or deep space flight is the only real use for the joint system. IMHO.

Apologies if my post came across as vague. I was in a rush between meetings. The joint is a unique kinematic innovation of which I feel is greatly important. Our current method of sending things into low-earth orbit has worked well for many years and for good reason. 50 years of engineering practice as you say. I think the use of this technology lies farther out in our space ventures.

OUT